Posted on 05/16/2005 1:29:17 PM PDT by wmichgrad
Companies look to save on insurance
WHAT? Just cause their average lives are MUCH shorter than yours and mine? You think actuaries should take "fagitis" into account?
I hope so. Then testing for genetic predispositions. Transplants, heart surgery, and these procedures are also costly. Wonder how they compare? Excuse me but when was there a guarantee of "healty" genes/life. What a crock--I don't know anyone who does not have some facet of their health in question. I have a lovely neighbor who paid a spa and exercised faithfully everyday and ate lettuce (healthy diet), does not smoke/drink. She had surgery in December for a brain tumor spent Feb-Apr in hospital especially for physical therapy until her insurance ran out, which was prior to the facility wanting to release her. (By the way, she was a teacher who had what everyone believes is good insurance). Wonder what her penalty will be for getting sick? And why should she pay a lessor premium than someone who smokes?
Isn't it Delphi and the UAW that negotiated to review medical records to grant sick leave. Hmmmm, wonder what that will lead to?
Amendment 18
Prohibition of liquor
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article, the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
Ratified January 16, 1919. Repealed by the Twenty-First, December 5, 1933
Amendment 21
Repeal of Prohibition
Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
Section 3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
Ratified December 5, 1933.
Is it coming to this ?
Man made booze is legal but tobacco in your own home is PROHIBITED ?
What Freedoms will lobbyists decide you dont need next ? Food,Water,Housing,Clothing,Your Car, Your LIFE ?
See they keep the booze legal so you can go out and get stupid drunk get arrested and get thrown in jail that way through your own drunken stupidity you allow them to rape your pocket book for rehab and dwi charges and other charges laid by your drunkeness.
Oh well it's your Freedoms .....Right ?
They won't go any further ....Right ?
This tobacco issue is just one of many steps special interest has in store for a free nation and they have been working on it for a long long time while we sit back as a free peopl and just watch it fester into a fascist law.!!!!
This is just prohibition with the luxury of NOT having the Constitution to protect you from the Tyranny of your Employer and Special Interest Groups.
This may really be the bottom line!
Dog eat dog and they love every minute of it.
Where are these statistics?
Now that was quite the leap. There is no scientific connection between being a homosexual (or being predisposed to be one) and one's genes. This is a yet another pseudo-scientific myth advanced by the homosexuals and their lobby in an effort to be legitimized. Homosexuality is a choice and nothing more. It's a simple cause and effect relationship: getting sick is the very likely outcome of willfully practicing acts of perversion . In the same way smoking and drinking are willful acts that lead eventually to sickness and death.
The employer should have that right, but probably doesn't.
I did not intend the rest of the post to relate to homosexuals. I too believe it is a choice. Same choice as bad genes mixing and having babies. Sorry that was not clear. Genetics as I intended were meant as a future for all of us to determine insurance rates. So if you are predisposed to a heart condition should you pay more than I if I smoke with no predisposition to a heart condition? Your heart surgery will be very expensive and the cost of my smoking is undetermined at this point.
Do your own research if you want statistics. Fact is, people who stuff themselves, smoke, don't exercise, etc. become too sick to work a lot sooner than people who take care of themselves. They may spend about the same number of years not working, and receiving a lot of medical care, but that's after fewer years of working. Do the math.
Proof?
Oh, sorry I misunderstood. Point taken...
disgusting
Thanks for the ping!
Thanks for posting.
Let me see if I have this right. The rate of smokers has been cut in at least half, the exposure to SHS is nearly eliminated, and the health care costs have skyrocketed. I guess we better start allowing people to smoke everywhere so the costs of healthcare can be greatly reduced!
"Wonder what her penalty will be for getting sick? And why should she pay a lessor premium than someone who smokes?"
Exactly. I propose that the structure of the policies change. Charge those that use the system the premiums for their actual costs. I do have to wonder, why are the companies so angry that a benefit they offer is being used? Why not just eliminate the benefit and up the pay....
"Do your own research if you want statistics. Fact is,..."
If it is a fact, it should be easy enough for you to prove. Why not provide the data to support your claim?
In your dreams--they may eliminate the benefit but I find it a hard swallow they will increase the pay only the profits. Eliminating the benefit could drive the insurance (and control of the insurance companies) down as so many would not be covered by benefits and not be able to afford to pay premiums. This might be a good thing EXCEPT the movement is to a national healthcare and I don't see how it will be stopped.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.